lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:59:44 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <>
To:	Vivek Goyal <>
CC:	Tejun Heo <>,,, Andrew Morton <>,
	Kay Sievers <>,
	Lennart Poettering <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,, Christoph Hellwig <>
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies

> Trying to make all the controllers uniform in terms of their treatment
> of cgroup hiearchy sounds like a good thing to do.


Apart from nesting cgroups, there're other inconsistencies.

- Some controllers disallow more than one cgroup layer. That's the new
net_prio controller, and I don't know why it's made so, but I guess
it's fine to eliminate this restriction.

- Some controllers move resource charges when a task is moved to
a different cgroup, but some don't?

- Some controllers disallow task attaching under some circumstances.
So if we have a single hierarchy with all subsystems, the chance
that attaching a task to a cgroup fails may be bigger.

> Once that is done,
> one can probably see if it is worth to put all the controllers in a
> single hierarchy.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists